Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)

WikiProject Australia / Australian rules football / Association football / Rugby / Sports (Rated Project-class)
Naming conventions (Football in Australia) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Australian sports.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Australian rules football.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Australian football (soccer) task force.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Rugby league.

Contents

Main pageEdit

For what it's worth, Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/December_16,_2014 happens next Tuesday morning (AU time). It would be awesome if there was some kind of resolution, however interim, for that. While I accepted "soccer" as the existing consensus, I never supported it (I use 'football' in conversations), and I can't deny I'm a little embarrassed at the thought of putting the word "soccer" on the main page for a global audience to see. (For those also wondering, the club and I are working through getting some better free images for the article, which will hopefully be finalised by Monday AU time). Daniel (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I doubt that there will be a resolution by then. I'm not sure why no one can see that calling 'Central Coast Mariners Football Club' a soccer club is inappropriate but the article is looking good none-the-less Lajamibr (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
In any case, it does serve as a reminder that Wikipedia is read by a global audience and as such it would make sense to use global language. -- Chuq (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Rubbish. There are any number of example throughout Wikipedia where specific language differences are catered for. This is just another one. - Nick Thorne talk 01:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
But it is worth noting that there is an explicit aim for consistency (where possible) (WP:COMMONALITY). Macosal (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Editor conductEdit

GoodDay says, Don't those who "didn't like it", risk being seen as disruptive, via their filibustering?

Nick Thorne responds, You would think so, but it would seem that at least part of their aim was to provoke a particular reaction from an editor who regrettably made the desired response and got blocked by what appears to be a trigger happy admin. I find it hard not to consider this to be poking the bear. These people will never accept anything except their preferred option, exhibit classic confirmation bias and simply repeat the same arguments ad nauseum, probably hoping to wear down their opponents by attrition.

Nick, I'm seeing those comments as projection. I'm happy for my "preferred option" to be proven wrong, but frankly, I'm not seeing the sources put forward to support this.

I take exception to the comments about provoking HiLo. I'm sorry if he or others feel that this is the case, but this is not my intention. Having him melt down gives me no pleasure at all. I would very much prefer him to stay calm, focussed and happy. And productive. The biggest problem with the previous RfC was that not everybody who wanted to participate was able to. I note a comment above about a very long and exhaustive process where several editors in favour of using the name "football" continued to make rude and disparaging comments about those with whom they disagreed, and got themselves blocked.

So why do we have to make personal and provocative comments about other editors at all? If the intention is to provoke other editors and get them thrown out of discussion, then the whole process is going to be flawed. A discussion which is essentially a shouting match full of personal insults or a one-sided rump is unacceptable. Can we lift our game, gentlemen? --Pete (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Considering you just compared using the word 'soccer' to calling Barack Obama a nigger, I'm not sure you really have much of a right to criticise other's behaviour. Cheers Spinrad (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Spinrad! Would that a personal criticism of the behaviour of another editor, by any chance? Your comments on the NPOV question are welcome, by the way. --Pete (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

NPOVEdit

If we opened a particular article with "Barack Hussein Obama II (US Listeni/bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn ɵˈbɑːmə/, UK /ˈbærək huːˈseɪn ɵˈbɑːmə/; born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States, and the first nigger to hold the office" then there would be an outcry, even if some said it was unambiguous, in common usage, shorter and simpler.

The game previously known as soccer is no longer called that by the government, the media, and most of all by the enormous organisation - it now has more people playing in teams than the next two football codes combined. Some years ago it went through a rebranding exercise to call itself Football. This has been amazingly successful, but instead of including the POV of this very large community, we are instead adopting the name used by those who are NOT part of the Football community. This is contrary to WP:NPOV and I intend to raise this issue at the NPOV noticeboard for discussion. So why are we still using a "nigger" term? They don't call themselves that any more, and the huge community of Football players should be respected, because this is Wikipedia and a neutral point of view is what we do. --Pete (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

First paragraph: argument by false analogy. Epic fail.
Second paragraph: yes, we agree that Soccer Australia decided to re-brand themselves as the Football Federation Australia. No doubt it has been successful and soccer's followers mostly use the word football to describe their sport. Even large parts of the press use the word football to describe the sport. I am quite prepared to concede all these things. However, regardless of those facts, a large proportion of the population of this country still calls the sport soccer. Large parts of the media also call it soccer, including both the Age and the newspaper with the largest circulation in the country, the Herald-Sun.
Some examples of newspapers using the word soccer not previously discussed here
So, although I would not be so foolish as to say that these papers never use the word football in this context, neither can you say they do not use soccer. The point you always gloss over is that despite what it might look like in parts of Australia where soccer support is at its highest, there remains a large ports of Australia for which the word soccer is current. It is arrant nonsense to say that calling the sport soccer "disrespects" anyone. Unlike your example of an offensive word for non-Caucasian people, soccer is not a pejorative word. Football remains an entirely ambiguous term when used without context in this country. No one, including the most die-hard followers of the sport fail to understand what the word means. You have simply failed to provide any compelling reason why the current consensus is inadequate or why it needs to change. There is nothin POV about using the word soccer, that is a canard you have trotted out because your argument is poor. I won't fall for it. - Nick Thorne talk 01:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Nick. The Herald-Sun appears to call the game Football on its website. There's no dispute that some regional media outlets still call the game soccer. A diminishing number, going by the changes I've seen in the year I've been following this issue. The national media overwhelmingly uses Football, as per links provided earlier. NPOV is about giving due weight to diverse views. We don't adopt one position to the exclusion of all others; we give each view due weight according to support, and fringe views don't get a look in.
Are we regarding the views of the largest team sport in the nation, the national media, and the government as fringe? By discounting them entirely and refusing to use their preferred term, you appear to be doing so.
You may not consider it offensive to call Football soccer, just as many Americans don't see it odd to describe Barack Obama as a nigger, but why use a minority term in the first place? Barack Obama would prefer our current usage of "African-American", I am quite sure, and Football Federation Australia would prefer their sport to be called Football. You may have your own private opinions, but looking at the wider community I think that we should give Football due weight, in line with NPOV policy, rather than relegate it to fringe view status. --Pete (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
If you take the school/other juniors out of your stats I think you'll find that soccer's claim to be the highest participation sport in Austrlia begins to look a bit thin, needy even. BTW, whatever the participation rate, what the fans of the sport call it does not determine what ordinary Australians call it, however you torture the statistics you cannot claim that the number of participantys is greater than the number of non-participants, so using your logic why should the opinions of a few (participants) trump that of the overwhelming majority (non-particiants). Indeed, this helps explain the media thing, sports writers write for a particular audience. If their target audience (ie soccer fans) call it football, then no surprise if the media does too. The majority, who don't read the sports pages, or if they do might only read the cricket, the golf or the tennis, or even the AFL, depending on their interests never see what it is called because they don't follow that sport. Yet these people still use language and I'd wager a large amount that most of them call it soccer. This is why using media as a guide to language usage is flawed - it can tell you that a word is used, but says nothing about its relative prevalence in the general population. "NPOV is about giving due weight to diverse views" indeed, so why do you discount the language used by most Australians, just because they couldn't give two hoots for your favourite sport? The true believers will find it anyway, but surely the point of Wikipedia is to inform people who do not already know what we are trying to say. In Australia, most people (bearing in mind that most people do not play any sport, let alone socccer) are not going to expect football to mean soccer, they probably have never even heard about the aversion to the word that a small subset of its fans seem to have. We are not writing Wikipedia for soccer fans.

Oh, and lay off the false analogy, it is highly offensive for you to try to equate perfectly ordinary language usage - that even started out within the soccer playing cumminity - with a pejorative term coined by the oppressors of black people in the US. - Nick Thorne talk 06:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

  • My favourite sport is baseball. I couldn't give two hoots for football of any variety.
  • I've yet to see a source for your view about what most Australians call it. We work on sources, not opinions.
  • The figures come from the ABS; presumably they use the same methodology for all codes, and include players at all levels for all codes. I can't see why they'd only include juniors for just one sport. Not sure about the "target audience" theory.
  • The use of "Football" is on the main pages. "Rugby Union, Football, NRL, AFL" is how it generally goes. The target audience for the main sports page would be all sports followers, not just Football.
Sorry, Nick, but you haven't changed my opinion that this is an NPOV matter. Anyone else? --Pete (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't care about changing your opinion, which I doubt I could change no matter what. What I do care about is providing a counter to your arguments where they are unconvincing. - Nick Thorne talk 20:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm available to be convinced. As I've said several times now, I've always called the game soccer. I changed my mind when I noticed the big media had changed their tune. That impressed me. --Pete (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to disappoint, but Wikipedia is not all about what convinces you, Pete. - Nick Thorne talk 22:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Funny. Just saying I can change my mind. My views aren't set in stone. I guess you gave it your best shot. That's fine. All views welcomed. --Pete (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that NPOV is the most convincing argument in favour of using "soccer" in the sense that I personally do not see the term as an offensive one. That said, WP:NPOV does require "proportionate representation" of all the significant views which have been published by reliable sources (which is on the "football" side, and moving in that direction). I think unsourced allegations or a "marketing campaign" are also on the wrong side of this policy ("avoid stating opinions as facts"). Macosal (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been following various Australian TV and radio sporting reports (both ABC and commercial networks) in the past week and they have all, without exception as I recall, constantly called the sport allegedly "formerly called soccer" by it "former" name ~ "SOCCER"! Afterwriting (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That'd be anecdotal evidence, then? And we're aware of regional differences. --Pete (talk) 12:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
It needs to be the starting point for this discussion that nobody can reasonably claim that one term is always used/another is not. Reliable sources make it very clear that neither is universally accepted. The number of back-and-forths in which people point to examples of a source using one term or another doesn't add much to this (already long and somewhat repetitive) discussion. For what it's worth, I'd suggest that radio news might use "soccer" because in that context (a discussion of many sports) "football" may be ambiguous - and I would suggest that Wikipedia should also use soccer in such contexts where multiple sports are being discussed. Macosal (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at practical usage hereEdit

I see that Donald Trump's Hollywood star is the subject of a council resolution that it not be replaced due to repeated incidents of vandalism, conflict, and violence.

Likewise the wikiuse of "soccer" to refer to the global sport of "football" is the subject of continued disruption, most notably by adherents of the sport taking exception to an incorrect name being used, and other editors changing it back again.

For example:

  • 8 August 2018: ETanktheGod at Football Federation Australia[1]
  • 8 August 2018: Acufone at Soccer in Australia[2]
  • 3 August 2018: IP Editor at 2018–19 A-League[3]
  • 31 July 2018: IP Editor at Adelaide United FC[4]
  • 30 July 2018: IP Editor at Sydney FC[5]
  • 28 July 2018: IP Editor at Perth Glory FC[6]
  • 21 July 2018: Acufone at Adelaide United FC[7]
  • 13 July 2018: Paladisious at Wangaratta[8]
  • 10 July 2018: IP Editor at Soccer clubs in New South Wales[9]
  • 10 July 2018: IP Editor at South Coast Flame FC[10]
  • 10 July 2018: IP Editor at Football South Coast[11]
  • 3 July 2018: IP Editor at A-League[12]
  • 3 July 2018: IP Editor at Football Federation Australia[13]

That's one every couple of days, and it just goes on and on. I grew weary of going back to copy examples before July, but I am quite sure that anyone who wishes can check the pattern as far back as they wish. So far as I can see, the IP editors are (mostly) different.

May I suggest that where the article is about the A-League, Football Federation Australia, football clubs or football players, exclusive of any other code such as Aussie Rules or Rugby, we use football to describe the sport being played?

Otherwise, every couple of days from here to eternity, some football fan is going to change the old term of soccer to the current term of football and some self-appointed wikivigilante is going to edit-war and berate another editor. --Pete (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I would support that, but at the same time it wouldn't surprise me if we would then see other IPs kick in and start changing from football to soccer. Lose-lose scenario methinks. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  08:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Point taken. I can't see any evidence that the IP editors listed above are sockpuppets or anything other than what they appear to be: ordinary users with an interest in football exercising their privilege to edit Wikipedia. I think if others appear doing the reverse, then they are likely not going to be editing in good faith. Football is the name of the sport and there are always going to be editors setting out in good faith to correct an error, and I think we should look favourably on good-faith editing. --Pete (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
This was discussed exhaustively four years ago, with the current guideline being the result. Nothing has changed in that time in how the various versions of football are named around Australia, so there is no point in changing the guideline. As was the case four years ago, "soccer" is still the only universally understood, non-ambiguous name for the round ball game in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
This is a different discussion on a more limited proposal. I propose limiting the effect to football-related articles only. No Rules or Rugby or any other sport. The idea is to remove the edit-warring we see every couple of days, where someone changes the name of the sport to its official name and somebody else - generally you, HiLo - reverts them back. Are we going to have to put up with this continuing three times a week for ever more? --Pete (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
And there's the core problem. When I saw your use of the word "football" there, I had to pause, and wonder which version of football you meant. The word is ambiguous in Australia. Had you said "soccer", there would have been no problem. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps, in the living room of your mind, it is the mid-1960s, and the black and white telly is playing the VFL match of the day, and "football" refers to one sport only. My point here is that those modern Australians following the sport administered by Football Federation Australia and Fédération Internationale de Football Association most likely do not see things in quite the same way, and telling them that they are vandals when they make a good faith edit is not the best way forward. --Pete (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not clear why that segment - I suggest it's a small segment - overrules the rest of the population.
HiLo48 I don't think directing my attention to the previous discussions was the greatest idea, certainly some of your conduct there doesn't paint you in the best light and it appears you do have ownership issues in this area as I have come across previously. I think Pete's more limited proposal is a sensible compromise and there's no harm in discussing it again, especially given a new suggestion has been made. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  09:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I am not the topic here, and that is precisely the kind of comment that I feared we would see when I saw Pete had re-opened this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Nope. They use the word football, just like the Australian Football League, Northern Tasmanian Football League, Darwin Football Club, St George Football Club, Manly-Warringah Football Club, West Perth Football Club, and many others. And the round ball club in my town (and in many others) calls itself a Soccer Club, because when it was formed there was already (and still is) a Football Club that plays Aussie Rules. The nearby high school has football teams and soccer teams. (Guess what game the ones called football teams play?) Is the word football ambiguous? Just a tad, I humbly submit. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No change When this was discussed about 4 years ago, socer was at it's apex of popularity in this country, yet the decision was made that the first mention of the sport in Australian articles should use the term soccer. Since then soccer has substantially waned in popularity so I see no reason to revisit the issue again. A local consensus here, if one were to be obtained, to overturn the previous RFC is not sufficient to make this change. - Nick Thorne talk 11:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
    • That's not what is being proposed here, Nick. I'm looking for a more limited solution to ongoing disruption. --Pete (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comparing vandalism of the President of the United States' Hollywod star to what generally seem to be good faith changes in articles is, at best, over the top and calling use of "soccer" instead of "football" incorrect, demonstrates a fundamental bias, as does use of some football fan to mean only a soccer fan. What you need to understand is that there are multiple football codes and soccer doesn't have a monopoly on use of the word "football". Referring to "soccer" as "the old term" is a rather narrow view. The reality is that many people, possibly even most of them, identify what you call "football" as "soccer". Even Association football says that soccer is more common and this is unlikely to change. Use of football to reference soccer is ambiguous at best as there are multiple codes played in Australia and they are more popular here. I actually saw in one article, "There are several football codes played in Australia; Rugby league, Rugby union, Australian rules football and football". Any of these can be validly called football. Australian rules football even has "football" in the name. When you refer to some football fan, despite your intent, most people are going to take that as meaning a fan of any of the above codes. No matter how much soccer fans think that football is the name of the sport, the rest of the world doesn't see it this way and that's why we will continue to get IPs changing the name regardless of what this convention says. --AussieLegend () 14:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
    • In Canberra, there used to be a sculpture in the centre of Civic showing four men climbing a staircase. The bronze staircase narrowed as it ascended and the topmost man was quite small, about the size of a fist. Every few months some drunk would think it was a clever idea to attack the thing and run off with the smallest figure.[14] Truly heroic vandals managed to knock off the second biggest figure. Eventually, the council got sick of the disruption and moved the artwork a few blocks to an interior courtyard of the Gorman Arts Centre, where it has remained intact ever since.[15] Same deal with Trump's vandalised star, and same deal here. The idea is to end the disruption that's occurring every two days. Neither you nor I can stop new editors coming along and correcting a football-related Wikipedia article as per the list above. Under the current situation, we're going to see the same thing happening every two and a bit days on average, just as it has done for years. Do you have a solution at all? --Pete (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
That is why, amongst other reasons, we have watchlists. I do not accept that we should make a change that causes our articles to be come ambiguous just to appease a few rabid, die-hard followers of soccer. It certainly is a pain reverting these IP edits, but no one is making anybody do this. If one of these pages becomes a particular problem we can ask for page protection, but really, I don't think the problem is at that stage just yet. It only takes a few seconds to revert one of these edits. It does not make sense to try and fix one problem by making a bigger one. - Nick Thorne talk 22:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Pete is concerned about what he says is labelling good faith edits as vandalism. It's not quite that, but I take his point. Unfortunately there isn't much choice among the templates that are automatically made available for responding to unregistered editors who make an inappropriate edit. But I take his point. I am happy to develop some more friendly words that I will use when I see editors who need to educated about our policy on naming football codes. Thanks for pointing out the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

They are good faith edits, unless there is some reason to believe otherwise. Therefore it is clear that the wider community - those who follow football, for example - see Wikipedia's naming policy as incorrect and seek to change the way the sport is described here. This seems to be confined to football articles; I'm not seeing the same sort of constant renaming activity on Rules or Rugby articles. Or any other sport, for that matter. --Pete (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. These edits are more likely made by people with an agenda - such as yourself - to try and supplant soccer in common usage because reasons. Here and elsewhere, people seem genuinely angry that soccer is referred to as soccer.
Not "the wider community". Just some members of it. Members unaware of our guideline, and/or members unaware of how the word is used in different parts of the country. And no, Aussie Rules fans aren't trying to change articles on that sport because they know and accept that the word football alone is ambiguous, even though its the name they most commonly use for their game, and that Australian football is a perfectly good, non-ambiguous alternative, just as soccer is a perfectly good, non-ambiguous, and universally understood alternative for the name of the round ball game.
I suggest that "some members of the wider community" is a perfectly good description of Wikipedia editors. Or any identifiable group of human beings. So your response is meaningless. As I have shown we are getting new editors correcting what they see as an obvious mistake in Wikipedia every couple of days and your response is to revert their good faith edit and send them away with a flee in their ear. That's roughly a hundred and fifty people a year, but you feel that your opinion outweighs theirs. --Pete (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
You did not say "SOME members of the wider community" in the comment I responded to. The word "some" was not there. This makes your response there somewhat meaningless. I responded to what you actually wrote, not something else. Please be more careful. HiLo48 (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Calm down. You used the phrase "Just some members of (the wider community). This could be any group. My point is that just because you have an opinion on something - which is fine - if hundreds of other people have a different opinion held just as strongly, perhaps we shouldn't turn them away so freely. Why not engage in dialogue with them? Find out what their views are? Who knows, we could find out we're wrong. As for me, I'm all for encouraging people who like to correct errors to become editors. --Pete (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Me too. But it's time to discuss the topic. Not me or you. HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the same sort of constant renaming activity on Rules or Rugby articles - There are good reasons for that. "Rugby", "League", "Union", "Australian rules" and the various combinations are not ambiguous. They, like soccer, are all football codes so, within articles of the various codes, including soccer, referring to football is fine. However, using "football" as the primary term is confusing. If the powers to be that control Australian rules football (the actual name) decided to call that sport "football" as the primary name, I'm quite sure you'd see a lot of renaming. On the other hand, if soccer articles used soccer or even Association football, I doubt you'd see anywhere near the amount of renaming that you see now. --AussieLegend () 06:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest, as HiLo48 has acknowledged, what we need is a standardised template for talk page notices when reverting these soccer > football edits, avoiding references to vandalism and explaining our naming conventions. This way the wikivigilante (also known as a user correctly following policy) won't be seen to be "berating" the editor, so as not to discourage them. Does this alleviate your concerns Pete? Any pages that are the subject of continued contentious edits can be locked, the same way we have always dealt with such issues, rather than have vandalism dictate Wikipedia policy. Jevansen (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Another option is to add editnotices to articles where renaming is an ongoing issue. For those who don't know what edit notices are, they are a notice that is prominently displayed at the top of a page when editing the page. This is an example. They need to be added by admins or template editors. --AussieLegend () 06:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm seeing a lot of suggestions to treat the symptoms and not the cause. The cause of the editors turning up every two days to correct what they see as an error is because they see it as an error - the name has been changed for fifteen years and Wikipedia apparently not caught up. Displaying warning signs and issuing cheerfully-worded notices won't change that. What about avoiding the contentious word "soccer" entirely, and using the wording, "association football"? No ambiguity, and football fans won't think we're ignorant wankers. --Pete (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Two falsehoods there. Firstly, "the name" has not "been changed for fifteen years". FFA changed the name it used internally, but as I have already said, they don't own the word. The name of the national league avoids both words. Not even all soccer clubs changed their names. I know of one inaugural national league club that still calls itself a soccer club. There are many others that haven't changed. And no Aussie Rules club changed its name away from "XXXXXX Football Club". Would you really expect the Collingwood Football Club to change its name? Seriously? Secondly, there is nothing contentious about soccer. That furphy appeared many times in the debate four years ago, with no evidence presented. As I have just pointed out, many soccer clubs still use the word soccer their names. And Socceroos is still the "official" nickname for the national team. Can't be too contentious. As for association football, that's just confusing. Too many people have no idea what it means. (Did you see my link above to the Victorian Football Association?) Soccer is the only universally understood, non-ambiguous name for the game in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 07:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The cause is use of "football" and there's nothing we can do about that. Nothing that we as Wikipedians can do will stop the renaming unless we fully protect the articles forever and that just isn't going to happen. People are still going to change things regardless of what steps we take. Over at the TV project, where I spend most time these days, MOS:TV has been rewritten and expanded, template instructions have been tightened and made more clear and many articles have hidden notes and editnotices yet they are all still ignored. I even had a registered user fix what they felt was a typo in my correct spelling of "encyclopaedia" in an AfD a few days ago.[16] There's just nothing you can do as long as Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. --AussieLegend () 08:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No change. Revert where necessary. Having this discussion for the umpteenth time with the exact same arguments is unhelpful - "football" does not usually mean soccer in Australia, no matter how determined a small minority of fans are. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No change- no need to "fix" what isn't broken. Reyk YO! 10:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Summing upEdit

The sport administered by Football Federation Australia has been officially called "football" in Australia since 2005. Consequently articles about that sport have been the subject of edits, often from IP editors - presumably Wikipedia users taking up the invitation that this is an encyclopaedia anyone can edit - correcting the previous name of "soccer" to "football".

We see this occurring every two days or so on average (as per the sample list above). A fresh instance(s) occurred on 10 August, when HiLo48 got into a bit of an edit war here.

I proposed that in order to avoid this sort of disruption/vandalism/biting newbies, we change the word "soccer" to "football" only for football-related articles.

HiLo48, Nick Thorne, and The Drover's Wife saw this as re-opening the previous discussion. It's not. This is a more limited proposal, and it would help if editors actually read and understood this point.

CJinOz liked the idea, but worried that, if implemented, fresh IP editors might come in and change "football" to "soccer".

HiLo48, with doubtless unconscious irony declared that '"soccer" is still the only universally understood, non-ambiguous name for the round ball game in Australia." Tennis, cricket, basketball and many others all use a round ball, but what he means, I think, is that "football" can also refer to Australian Rules or the various Rugby codes, which use a more ovoid ball. I'm not proposing any changes to articles based on these sports.

Nick Thorne, addressing the actual problem of edits, suggested that some pages could be protected, and so long as people had watchlists, this was fine. HiLo typically spots these edits and reverts them within a few minutes, so obviously some hot zeal going on there.

HiLo thought that rewording the welcome notices he sends to new editors to remove references to vandalism might help. It might make them feel less aggrieved, yes, but it won't stop them making the edit in the first place.

AussieLegend said that if the affected articles used the term association football, "I doubt you'd see anywhere near the amount of renaming that you see now." Good point.

Jevansen also suggested welcome templates with more friendly warning - which I see HiLo has implemented in his latest quick-draw revert - and seconds the idea that some pages could be protected against edits by new users.

I'm not seeing much solid traction from the limited number of editors who contributed here for using the word "football" in football-related articles. It would solve the problem identified, but they feel it might cause some confusion.

On the other hand, AussieLegend's suggestion of "association football" appeals to me. HiLo feels that this term too is confusing claiming that people might think it referred to the Victorian Football Association which obviously has a limited geographic reach, not to mention having ceased trading in 1996. I'm not convinced by his argument.

While a few diehard football fans might change "association football" to "football", I think that there will be far fewer than those offended by "soccer". More friendly wording for new editors is always nice, and I think that protection or semi-protection for football-related articles is impractical.

Accordingly, I intend to open an RfC to the effect that football-related articles such as Football Federation Australia, A-League, Sydney FC and so on use the term "association football" in place of "soccer".

I note that this convention is used in articles such as New Zealand Football, Oceania Football Confederation, Asian Football Confederation, FIFA and so on, and these articles aren't attracting constant edits to change "association football" into "football". Sydney FC has the dab wording as the very first words in the article:This article is about the men's association football team. For the women's association football club, see Sydney FC (W-League). This has lasted without challenge - even from HiLo, who is a frequent edit-warrior on this article - since 2013, so that bodes well for the stability of the term.

Are there any comments or suggestions for the wording, please? --Pete (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a huge amount of misrepresentation in that comment. I was tempted to use stronger language, but drew back. The second sentence of this discussion speaks of continued disruption. I submit that it is a greater disruption to Wikipedia every time editors are forced to revisit this discussion. The effort that has already gone into this over the past couple of days far exceeds the effort involved in simply reverting those edits done against the existing guideline over the past four years. There is minimal support for any change to the status quo. Please stop this continued disruption. HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
There's continued disruption anyway, from editors making corrections every couple of days. I think if we move into line with other nations on this we'll have less trouble. New Zealand - in the example above - seems to have handled it well, and if they can do it in a nation where Rugby is the state religion, why can't we? The example of the dab notice in Sydney FC where "association football" is used and has remained unchanged since 2013 is instructive. You've edited that article frequently and haven't found the term offensive. The idea is to end the disruption, and I am sure you can't gain any enjoyment from making two or more extra edits every couple of days when you jump on a newbie. --Pete (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Looking at New Zealand's example as a way of maximising happiness and minimising disruption, I find a team playing in the Australian league where nobody seems confused, and edits are concentrated on the actual substance of the topic. Wellington Phoenix FC doesn't seem to have got anybody hot under the collar. If New Zealand can do this stuff with grace and style, why can't we? --Pete (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
There is even more misrepresentation in those two comments. It's clear there is no point continuing to discuss this with you. I will return if I need to if the level of misrepresentation worsens. HiLo48 (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I have collapsed the "summary" by Pete. Firstly, I take exception to being verballed by other editors, secondly User:Skyring has a clear agenda here and I do not accept their bona fides for making an unbiased assesment of the discussion, although I'm sure they think they are editing in good faith. Editors can read the discussion for themselves and see exactly what editors have said and in what context. If anyone is to make a summary of this discussio, it should be an uninvolved editor closing it, not one party to the dispute. - Nick Thorne talk 23:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The idea that articles should be changed to suit IPs who change X to Y is not viable. That's putting it very kindly—the idea is self-disqualifying. Wikipedia is a sitting duck for those who push various views and WP:DENY is routinely used to combat disruption. Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
    • If they are vandals and trolls, I agree with you 100%. But I'm not seeing this. HiLo, who is routinely quick on the trigger, has agreed to use more moderate language in his welcome posts. If we AGF, then it seems reasonable that these IP editors are people who have come here for information, and taken the opportunity to edit Wikipedia to reflect the official name of their sport. I'm all for encouraging people to get more involved, correct more errors, create accounts and join the community. --Pete (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
      • I am not the topic. Please stop talking about me. HiLo48 (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
        • True, dat. Still, no other editor is as enthusiastic about changing the sport's names to their preferred version, and I don't think anyone other than you or I has spent as much time discussing the thing on talk pages. Your input and your activity is obviously germane to any progress on this. --Pete (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I don't know, I've reverted more than a few of these changes over the last four years, esppecially during the period when HiLo48 was absent from the project. It is not an onerous task. Your solution is to make the relevant articles less clear in order to prevent a minor nuisance that easily dealt with in the ordinary course of editing. I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill and are frankly trying to undo by stealth a decision you never accepted, but you've been caught out. - Nick Thorne talk 01:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Do you have any wording suggestions for this "stealthy" RfC I'm proposing, Nick? --Pete (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia has an article on that. HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


Objectors are regressive and yes the lot of you failing to understand the naming convention has changed and given the general public opinion of "soccer" among the unwashed masses... Probably for ulterior motives also. The name changed almost 13 years ago now. It's time to let go of he chicken little belief that the sky will fall in if you call it football. Its really easy actually and the vandalism of my talk page by Hilo48 for my bold edit does not help the situation.
To sum up this issue that game that is commonly played in 3 states (South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia) has 3 common names... Australian Rules, Aussie Rules or simply AFL in Queensland. That game called Rugby League has 3 common names (one of which is contested between two sports and yet we don't have this argument about what rugby is in Australia) Rugby, League, or simply Rugby League with an archaic Rugby League Football (RFL)). That game that is known as Rugby Union has three common names... Rugby, Union, or simple Rugby Union.
The fact that three of these sports other than Football (proper) use the word football or footy as an anachronism to a sport they once were is neither here nor there.
If we gave it the grandma test your grandmother would be able to tell you three of these sports are played with an egg shaped ball, and one of them is played with a round ball and commonly played with the foot, rather than the hand (unless you're the goal keeper a position eliminated in the rugby based codes and eliminated all but for international football with the AFL). Only one of these games is played on the field with the foot predominately for on field play when the ball is contested.
The fact that we're going over this with three different games that have had separated and codified rules for more than 100 year is quite frankly ridiculous.

--2001:8003:640F:4C00:A195:1E65:FB95:B5FB (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

How the PE teachers organise the balls at an Australian school

 

HiLo48 (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah yeah... Another regressive. Change comes from the top down in organisational structures not the bottom up. Ask your boss if you can be called boss just because you think that's the wise thing to do and see how long your job lasts. --2001:8003:640F:4C00:8D16:20A0:5C13:EAEA (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there. If it is that the FFA changed the name of soccer within their organisation, so the rest of us must follow in our everyday lives, that's not how language works. Unlike French, the English Language, and in particular Australian English, has no over-ruling authority to tell us how we must use the language. The FFA certainly doesn't fill that role. There are probably 10 million Australians for whom the word "football" has, for all their lives, meant only one thing. The decision of a bunch of soccer loving bureaucrats in Sydney, who don't have that background, ain't gunna change that. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Football is the name of the global sport, and the Australian body merely changed their name to reflect the wider reality. Possibly your heart lies in the previous century, when it was all different, but at some stage we have to recognise that times have changed. Joan Kirner and her polka dots may be found in the dustbin of history, along with pet rocks and soccer. --Pete (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't planning on responding to your comments any more, but "Possibly your heart lies in the previous century" is not a comment on the topic. It's about me. Unnecessary, inappropriate and unhelpful, again. HiLo48 (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
HiLo48 is indeed correct in saying that what the FFA calls the sport does not oblige anyone else to call it that in Australia. If people want to call it "soccer", or any other name for that matter, then they are free to do so. There is no doubt that soccer is the common name in this country and soccer fans need to recognise that. ---AussieLegend () 05:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
"No doubt"? Do you have a source for this? I had to laugh at the "10 million people" claim. Waaay out of touch. --Pete (talk) 06:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
"Waaay out of touch." That's a comment about me too, isn't it? I AM NOT THE TOPIC!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 06:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Calm down. That wasn't a comment about you personally. Just your ludicrous claim. Do you have a source? --Pete (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I'll just move to the side again and watch the insults flow. HiLo48 (talk) 07:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Dag nab it. What do you Australians call this sport, anyway? GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Soccer is the common name here because we play multiple codes of football and referring to the different football codes as rugby league, rugby union, Australian rules and football is confusing and stupid. --AussieLegend () 16:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
As we see, there are diehard fans of other codes, who cannot accept that the global sport is called football and soccer began its decline in 2005. The common name, according to the national newspaper, is now football: [17] --Pete (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of any of the codes and the link that you've provided in no way supports your claim. In fact, if you look at the page title you'll see it's "Football News & Soccer results". Note that "Football & Soccer". You might like to read WP:SYNTH. --AussieLegend () 17:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
If you could indicate where on the page you're finding the words you quote, it would be helpful. --Pete (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
It's not in that image. Try looking at the page source, line 58 in Firefox: <title>Football | Football News & Soccer Results | The Australian | The Australian</title>. That's what appears on the tab at the top. --AussieLegend () 21:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I suggest that if you have to go rooting around in the page source rather than what's actually displayed in your browser, it's not going to be the common name. I mean, are you reading Wikipedia as HTML source right now? --Pete (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
You don't need to go rooting around in the page source. It's right there on the tab for the page that you have open. I said to look in the source because what you wanted wasn't in the image that you posted. --AussieLegend () 22:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Why, so it is! I'd have to close down about a dozen tabs to see anythng other than "Football" in the browser tab. What's on the actual page, hmmmmm? --Pete (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
You know and I know Pete wasn't talking about that source. Ideally in a perfect world this is an academic encyclopaedia and to avoid Wikipedia:SYNTH it is best to base your thoughts in some sort of reality. In the realms of reality, coming from someone who has been there and done that and worked in the realms of reality and produced a thesis based on reality... Let me say something... Newspapers and non-tabloid type magazines are an acceptable source of information only where no other higher form of information exists about the topic. Other more credible sources include peer reviewed journals and to a lesser extent books today published within the last 5 years (especially in this case) because of how rapidly information changes these days (especially in terms of current events).
Surely IF soccer is the common name of the game it should be written down in some kind of book or journal repeatedly that the name IS soccer and by convention that SOCCER is the most commonly used word in AUSTRALIA. This would make a very good topic for a thesis... Unfortunately I don't have the time to write it myself. --2001:8003:640F:4C00:F514:88BA:FF54:60C2 (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Is the Macquarie Dictionary good enough for you?
soccer

/ˈsɒkə/ (say 'sokuh)

noun 1. a form of football in which there are eleven players in a team, the ball is spherical, and the use of the hands and arms is prohibited except to the goalkeeper; association football.

–verb (t) 2. Australian Rules to kick (a football) along the ground, as opposed to in the air: he soccered the ball 30 metres down the field.

[(as)soc(iation football) + -er2]

Usage: While it is still the case that, in general use, soccer is the preferred term in Australia for what most of the world calls football, the fact that the peak body in Australia has officially adopted the term football for this sport will undoubtedly cause a shift in usage.

Note particulalry the usage entry. Seems like this is one of your more credible sources you were asking for. I have never denied that the usage of the word, like any word in English, may be changing. However, it has not yet changed for the majority of people in this country except for a few fanboys who want to impose their narrow view of the world on everyone else. - Nick Thorne talk 04:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The dictionary is a good place to start where no other information is available on the subject. It seem at present we want to follow some kind of American convention where the name soccer is said to come from some link to the word association football. That's the broader problem... We are not Americans, most people who follow soccer want nothing to do with Americans or American football and in most of the rest of the world the use of the word soccer is declining... and yet we have this contrived convention forced on us where you yourself has acknowledged the probable change eventually to the name football anyway. Which in mine and many other people's views around the world is the only true name for the game which is played with the foot and not those other "hand egg" games. --2001:8003:640F:4C00:F514:88BA:FF54:60C2 (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
You asked for a more reliable source, I provided one. The word soccer is not an American invention. Sure, they use the word, but the the word is actually very firmly British in origin. They invented the sport and they invented the word soccer for it. Please at least do a minimum of research before you wax lyrical on the subject. There is no contrived convention as you put it, only a reflection of the fact that the word soccer is entirely ambiguous insertunambiguousword (19 Oct 2018) in Australia. The agreed consensus does not require every time where you might use the word football (meaning the round ball game) it be replaced with the word soccer, only that the first mention on a page relating to the sport in Australia uses the word soccer to avoid any ambiguity. Throwing temper tantrum because you don't like it is never going to change the fact that if you mention football to most Australians, the sport they think of is far more likely than not going to be something other than soccer. Oh, and it does not matter what other people's views around the world are, this is only about the usage in Australia. - Nick Thorne talk 05:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Do you have a source for that "most Australians" claim? --Pete (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Already provided in general use, soccer is the preferred term in Australia for what most of the world calls football. Is the Macquarrie Dictionary not RS enough for you, or do you prefer tabloid newspapers? - Nick Thorne talk 09:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
A cite from the mid 2000s when the official name changed in 2005 doesn't cut it. In this case, common usage must be what is current, and when we are talking about sports, yes, media outlets such as tabloids are exactly what we should be looking at. As for official sources, the fact that the latest Australian Sports Commission reports use the word "football" is an indicator. Here's a link to a report dated April 2018. For boys, the top ten activities for boys include - and I use the terms given in the table - Football (21.9%), Australian football (14.6%), Rugby league (5.7%), Rugby union (3.6%). Now, while individual editors might cling to older terms, perhaps deeply reluctant to admit to the passing of the years, at some point there must be some acknowledgement that things have indeed changed. What's the point of battling against the facts? --Pete (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we should all stick to the facts, rather than insults like "while individual editors might cling to older terms, perhaps deeply reluctant to admit to the passing of the years..." HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Nick! What's the date on that wording, do you know? --Pete (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
At least ten years ago - to answer my own question. Interesting to see that one sports media outlet has changed to using "football" explicitly, even though the URL structure was originally "soccer". --Pete (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
You answer your own question incorrectly. The quote from the Macquarie Dictionary was from today, I looked it up online. So whenever it was originally written, it is still current as Macquarie Dictionary has a continuous review process of its entries like any quality dictionary. Who cares what some journalists do, their agenda is to pander to their readership, not reflect common word usage from the majority of Australians that actually couldn't care less about the sensibilities of some fanatic soccer fans. - Nick Thorne talk 05:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I know a little bit about dictionary updates. If you think lexicographers are continually updating definitions on a monthly or even yearly basis, you have no idea of the economics of dictionary publishing. The definition is from somewhere between 2005 and 2008 and hasn't been changed since then. Otherwise it would be different because that's the way definitions go. You update a definition, you don't just look at it and say, yeah, looks okay. You look at all the slips of current sources that accumulate for a word over the years and write a new one. It's not a simple job.
Just wondering how you are going to get a reliable source for common usage if you exclude the media, Nick? --Pete (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not disappearing down that rabbit hole again. - Nick Thorne talk 06:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
You don't think we need sources then? You are just going to base Wikipedia on whatever you personally feel? I suggest that if you don't have reliable sources, than you should step back from editing. --Pete (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
It seems it's not me that has a problem with reliable sources. You might not like it, but the only RS provideed in this discussion makes the case pretty clearly that soccer is the word in common use in Australia. - Nick Thorne talk 09:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I know a bit about dictionaries and the way they're used for common practices. They're pretty good but for academic use in terms of the historiographical sense a sports historian would use to come up with an understanding of something, they're not the be all and end all. Unfortunately we don't have some kind of study such as the one that I linked above with the break down of how the media is using a particular word... These studies are time absorbing, and resource challenging, and I'm not putting my hand up to do such a study that would give us a more definitive answer. Also while Macquarie Dictionary is the de facto standard for Australia, it can't be taken as a "gold standard" because unlike other languages such as French or German there is no authoritative governing body that sets out what the Australian English language should be. As to style guides, they're also pretty good but they only set the standard for a particular publication. Until we have someone who is going to an in depth study though, there will be no clear and in depth understanding of whether "soccer is the most commonly used name for that game played with a round ball." --2001:8003:640F:4C00:F514:88BA:FF54:60C2 (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Yeah, nice little OR rant. Until you have a better, more reliable source than Macquarie Dictionary which is as you put it the de facto standard for Australia, I think we're done here. - Nick Thorne talk 13:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The pre-2008 dictionary entry has the usage note While it is still the case that, in general use, soccer is the preferred term in Australia for what most of the world calls football, the fact that the peak body in Australia has officially adopted the term football for this sport will undoubtedly cause a shift in usage.. That official adoption occurred in 2005, and if you want to use a cite from that time to illustrate usage in 2018, you are clinging to a slender reed indeed. As can be easily seen, government usage via the Australian Sports Commisssion reports[18] is for "football", and media outlets[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] tend to use that term as well. As the Macquarie predicted in the mid-2000s, we are seeing the undoubted shift in usage right now. We have been having this discussion for several years, and the football tide has been flowing steadily all that time. It didn't crest and recede. No, it is stronger than ever. --Pete (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
That's a slab of pure original research, plus the insult "you are clinging to a slender reed indeed". I'm enjoying watching the insults flow so reliably. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Pete, you said It didn't crest and recede. Really? Popularity of a sport is obviously reflected in attendence at its fixtures. A-league attendence peaked in 2007-2008. What's the date now? - Nick Thorne talk 23:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I was talking about the Macquarie Dictionary usage note for the word we're discussing. You know, the one you quoted above. I guess this means you are out of any useful contributions to the discussion. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Another insult. HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, good onya Pete. Ignore the fact that the only RS provided does not support your POV. Classic IDHT! I'm outta here until and unless someone comes up with something new about this. - Nick Thorne talk 04:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
You don't class the ABC, SBS, the Australian Sports Commission and so on as reliable sources? Can you please explain why you are swimming against the tide on this one? --Pete (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
"...you are swimming against the tide". Please stop talking about other editors. HiLo48 (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's an interesting article, with some good and exciting news about soccer, in an online Australian journal with 2.2 million readers - https://thenewdaily.com.au/sport/football/2018/10/01/october-huge-month-for-australian-soccer/ HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

An article under the "football" tab in the sports menu, I notice.[28] HiLo, I'm well aware that some important media outlets don't use football to refer to the game. The Herald-Sun and The Age, for example. But times are changing, and it stems from the decision made to change the official name of the sport in 2005. That genie isn't going back into the bottle, no matter how hard you wish. --Pete (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
You're talking about me again. And I'm not the topic. HiLo48 (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of what media outlets do, it has no bearing on the usage of the words football and soccer by the general Australian population. The only RS so far provided to directly address this issue is the Macquarie Dictionary which says in general use, soccer is the preferred term in Australia, sure it then goes on to discuss a potential shift in usuage in the future, but no one has provided any independent source that shows that such a shift has actually occurred. What sources that have been provided are clearly either partisan or by journalists who naturally write to appeal to the segment of the public interested in the sport concerned. This has nothing to do with general usage. I see that the Anon complained that there is no gold standard authority for the English language and that therefore the Macquarie Dictionary is the de facto standard for Australia. I agree. In no universe can you claim that newspapers (even less so tabloids) are more reliable sources than the Macquarie Dictionary. As I said in my previous post, unless someone comes up with something new and substantial, I'm done here. - Nick Thorne talk 05:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
An article under the "football" tab in the sports menu - Soccer is a form of football so that's entirely understandable.
I'm well aware that some important media outlets don't use football to refer to the game - Neither does the national team, the Socceroos, who are mentioned in the article. Even the local club here is called the "Raymond Terrace Soccer Club", not the "Raymond Terrace Football Club". --AussieLegend () 09:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
An article under the "football" tab in the sports menu}} - Soccer is a form of football so that's entirely understandable. Gotta laugh. There's the football tab. And the AFL tab. And the NRL tab.[29]
Nick, if you want to ignore generally accepted reliable sources showing that the usage shift predicted by the Macquarie is occurring, feel free. You are easily disproven, as shown above. Personally, I find it entertaining to watch you wriggle and squirm, but there it is. Wikipedia runs off reliable sources, and I think we're just about ready to take this on to the second act. --Pete (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Why so much importance on the names of sections on websites rather than what the actual articles use? Spinrad (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
The standard complaint here is that using "football" to describe the game is confusing. Obviously, when actual commercial enterprises with large readerships have headings on their sports page titled "Football, Rugby league, Rugby union, and AFL", it's not seen as confusing out in the real world. Individual journalists can and do use whatever terms they want. Individual preferences of journalists and Wikipedia editors don't amount to common usage. --Pete (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Aren't the nouns used in the headers chosen by the editor or editors though? I.E individuals. Why would a header trump prose? Spinrad (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
These names - in headers and divisions - would be set at a higher level than that of an individual journalist. Much like what we are doing here. --Pete (talk) 05:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
How does that relate to common usage though? Spinrad (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
By using the name football, a media outlet is making a statement that its readers are not going to be confused. Football, association football, and soccer are the names in use; choosing one sends a signal aimed directly at the consumer. Pitching the language at the reader is important. Use words that are big and unfamiliar, the unschooled will choose easier outlets. Ones that they can understand without having to look up a dictionary. Outlets such as the Telegraph are aimed squarely at the heavy consumer of sports news, for example. The Australian Financial Review, not so much. Compare the sort of language and terms used in both.
There are other considerations in play. Neutral point of view, for example. If the governing body of the most popular sport in Australia says the name of the game is football, then who are we to say otherwise? No other code claims the name. --Pete (talk) 08:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
"you want to ignore generally accepted reliable sources" and "I find it entertaining to watch you wriggle and squirm..."
From the page instructions just above this edit window - "Please remember to keep on-topic and avoid commenting on other editors." HiLo48 (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks like projection to me, only to be expected when unable/unwilling to address the substantive issues raised. - Nick Thorne talk 11:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Quite possibly. And that's all I'll say about another editor here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
While the Macquarie standard is used for quibbling perhaps one should pay finer attention to what I was saying above, particularly user Nick Thorne. It may humble you also that what I said was not OR at all. To summarise the point in context "dictionaries are not a substitute for the judicial determination of the interpretation and the construction of words" and moreover, multiple dictionaries (and other sources of relevant information) may be used to come up with the determination of what a word means. See here for the discussion in full that is most pertinent to your wikilawyering and filibustering.


In the context of the argument, no one is stopping anyone else, Collins or Oxford for instance in coming up with an Australian dictionary and furthermore without an official standard for the word "football" we can only use it as a reference point and not as an official dictate here. Without anything else to go by and without any relevant research on word frequency and language use (and I'm not putting my hand up to do the research) we cannot be sure exactly what the most prevalent use of the word football is (although the AFL tragics would have us believe the WHOLE country uses the football to relate to their beleaguered code that's a matter for a discussion some place else).
Here's the real deal on the matter... UNTIL such time as something better comes up the only thing we can go by is some sort of consensus on the matter which, given the edit warring (going over the various football (soccer) articles at a glance has been going on for several years now indicates there is no clear consensus and the term soccer is a bug bear for all (except the fanatics sitting on the sidelines).


You would hope we could all come here an edit like adults but as Wikipedia proves time and time again this just isn't possible, which is also why I rarely contribute here in any meaningful way --2001:8003:640F:4C00:A5DA:5FAB:410D:F15D (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
"...the AFL tragics would have us believe the WHOLE country uses the football to relate to their beleaguered code". I think you lost a large part of the audience with that obviously false, POV statement. HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
"...the AFL tragics would have us believe the WHOLE country uses the football to relate to their beleaguered code". No one is making this claim, not on Wikipedia nor in real life. Just that 'football' is a very common name for Australian rules outside of NSW/QLD/ACT, something that editors from those three states/territories don't seem to be able to comprehend. Spinrad (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Sports are like religion or politics to some. Their fanatical view is the only one that matters. My actual proposal, way above, was an attempt to diminish the edit-warring caused by some editors' fanatical hatred of football.
I think using the term "association football" in articles where football is the subject is a way to stop our readers from changing the now deprecated term "soccer" to the now current "football". Some fanatics scan any football-related article and edit-war things back to their preferred version, and what's the point in that? Where does wikipedia benefit if our readers think we're a bunch of wankers with our heads up our retentive bums?
The Irish example is a useful one to follow, where their Gaelic football is a major sport, and football is rather less popular. Here in Australia, football is actually way more popular than AFL or the rugby codes, but still, some fanatics prefer to dogpoaddle against the tide. --Pete (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean by "football"? Why do you insist on ignoring WP:MOSFIA? And if "soccer" is deprecated, why are there still hundreds of clubs calling themselves Soccer Clubs? And why do so many schools call the sport "soccer"? (see picture above) HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Here in Australia, football is actually way more popular than AFL or the rugby codes, Really? ROFL!!! Do you mean game attendances? Nope, that can't be it. TV audience? Nope. In what strange universae do you think this is even a remote possibility? You need a whole lot more than your OR assertion to be making claims like that. - Nick Thorne talk 21:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Some relevent links soccer attendence down soccer behind AFL and NRL A-League in the doldrums - Nick Thorne talk 21:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
As we've seen elsewhere, the government's figures put participation in football way ahead of any other organised sport. Oh. Yeah. You don't like the government figures. Tough.
But we're talking about the name of the game here, not popularity. Given Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, what makes you think we can disregard the name chosen by the sport's organising body and increasingly accepted by media outlets as their preferred term? --Pete (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Because WP:COMMONNAME doesn't give a fig what the sport's organising body chooses to do. - Nick Thorne talk 23:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
What percentage of the population are involved in organised sport though? And compared to people who watch sport on TV? Spinrad (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Must say, I'm enjoying this Pissing contest NZFC(talk)(cont) 23:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Glad to see we have an appreciative audience. And thank you for that excellent example of WP:WHAAOE. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Common NameEdit

Looking at WP:COMMONNAME mentioned above, we read this

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)…

If anybody prefers "Soccer" over "Football" please provide some evidence of this "significant majority".

I'm not seeing this. I'm seeing a growing trend to Football which is pretty even-steven with Soccer at the moment.

It's likely you've got an "echo chamber" effect going on. Outside of the soccer fanbase, we have the communities of other football codes, who refer to their own favourite as football. They'd hardly start referring to another code as football just because Soccer Australia told them to. Then we have what I suggest are the majority of Australians, who have no real interest in professional sport, and know little of name games. If you show them a picture of a soccer ball, I contend they would say "That's soccer ball". If you asked them what sport the Socceroos play, they'd say "soccer". This is what common name policy is supposed to reflect. Furthermore, a lot of stock is put into the choice of newspaper tabs, as this is probably the only broadly noticeable effect of the renaming. But many of those decision where made shortly after the name change, and could not possibly reflect a shift in common usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.79.160 (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Given that WP:COMMONNAME is a policy, and WP:NPOV is a core policy, I suggest that we look at WP:WEIGHT. The official name of the sport in Australia is Football. That is also the global name of the sport. It is beyond reasonable belief that any readers are going to be confused into thinking that it is referring to another sport in Australia (none of which refer to themselves as Football).

If anybody prefers "Soccer" over "Football" please indicate why we should ignore the official name of the sport in Australia. --Pete (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)












HiLo48 (talk) 05:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
It's quite possible, ya'll may have to settle on using both names for the aforementioned sport. Football in some Australian articles, Soccer in others. Perhaps ya'll should start figuring out which articles should fall under which sport name. Then from there, keep those names in usage per respective articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
That's sounds like a perfect recipe for opening a Pandora's box of worms. HiLo48 (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Question, since we have a problem with a consensus and constant edit warring on "soccer" articles whats the problem with a disambiguation at the top of a page then letting editors do whatever the hell they like in the article? --2001:8003:640F:4C00:E030:70A3:9F46:BBBC (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
We do not have constant edit warring, and consensus was achieved four years ago. HiLo48 (talk) 11:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Occasional drive by edits by various IPs changing soccer to football is not constant edit warring. - Nick Thorne talk 23:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I gave up on this debate a long time ago... Soccer is neither the official, nor common name of the sport in Australia as a collective. The key word here is Australia - not just Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia. The fact that "consensus" was achieved and accepted on naming in 2014 through the votes of 11 people, a sample size that is both not even close to being representative and is small enough to be artificially skewed through a group of like-minded voices with an agenda, is farcical. Notwithstanding the name of the sport forming the first word of the national body, Football Federation Australia, the sport is referred by the overwhelming majority of national and state Government bodies as "Football" (including Vic, Tas and SA) and the sport is clearly referred to as "Football" by the overwhelming majority of (if not, all) national and state level media outlets. The overwhelming majority of Football clubs are suffixed as "FC", not "SC". Note that there are absolutely a minority that do suffix as "SC", however they are both in the minority and are generally in southern states, where some small/local clubs differentiate themselves both based on local vernacular and/or to avoid conflict with an existing club that already has the name "[Location] Football Club" - the suffix AFC (Association Football Club) is also used in both instances. It appears that from the regular faces that crop up in these debates, this issue is more of one based on a long-standing, personal grievances with Football being referred to as Football, rather than a debate with any factual substance. I find it in-credible that any reasonable individual could consider "soccer" to be the official or common name of the sport across this country given the facts outlined above. I note that across the years, perfectly acceptable compromises have been offered, such as a return to "Football (soccer)", as it was before a lot of the pissing contests started. The level of debate on this issue is embarrassingly childish and, again, is evidently one founded on individual agenda rather than fact. It's disappointing as the Wikipedia community is supposed to be one of working together to assemble an accurate Wiki that is factual and representative, not one that is agenda driven. Ck786 (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
A few things: It's not referred to as 'Football' by the 'vast majority, if not all' media outlets. Close to all outside NSW/QLD use 'Soccer', save for the section headers of a few newspapers' online editions. The 'Australia - not just Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia' argument is about one rung above being an ad-hom. It doesn't even really make sense anyway, those three states (plus WA and NT) make up about half the population (a significant amount, and not about 5% like people from QLD/NSW like to believe). The official name argument is irrelevant, Wikipedia doesn't require the use of official names; we use 'soccer' because it's more concise and common than 'Association football', less ambiguous and arguably more common than 'Football', and more concise than 'Football (soccer)' which isn't really proper formatting. The club suffix argument isn't great, the majority of 'AFL' clubs are typically named something like '(Town) Football Club', but none of that sport's editors are pushing for it to be referred to exclusively as 'Football' on Wikipedia. Also probably not a good idea to throw around accusations of personal grievances and individual agendas, that could apply to every single editor involved in this argument yourself included Spinrad (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
You are howling at the moon, mate. When we had Soccer Australia, the National Soccer League, the Socceroos, and a shed load of soccer clubs, they'd still shrilly insist that it was called football. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.79.160 (talkcontribs) 10:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
And we still have the Socceroos, and a shed load of soccer clubs. Every club with the word "football" on the end, within 10 km of where I live, plays Aussie Rules. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Naming conventions (Football in Australia)".